Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 239–255 | Cite as

Similarity Arguments in the Genetic Modification Debate

Article
  • 602 Downloads

Abstract

In the ethical debate on genetic modification (GM), it is common to encounter the claim that some anti-GM argument would also apply an established, ethically accepted technology, and that the anti-GM argument is therefore unsuccessful. The paper discusses whether this argumentative strategy, the Similarity Argument, is sound. It presents a logically valid, generic form of the Similarity Argument and then shows that it is subject to three types of objection: (i) It does not respect the difference between pro tanto reasons and all-things-considered judgments; (ii) it relies on the unproblematic transferability of reasons from one case to another; and (iii) it runs the risk of equivocations, especially in cases where the anti-genetic-modification argument relies on gradable features. The paper then shows how these issues play out in three specific Similarity Arguments that can be found in the literature. Finally, the paper discusses what conclusions we can draw from the fact that genetic modification and established technologies are similar for the ethical status of genetic modification.

Keywords

Genetic engineering Ethics Particularism Analogy Bioethics Environmental ethics 

References

  1. Blackburn S (1996) Securing the nots: moral epistemology for the quasi-realist’. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W, Timmons M (eds) Moral knowledge? new readings in moral epistemology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Boldt J (2013) Life as a technological product: philosophical and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Biol Theory 8:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boldt J, Müller O (2008) Newtons of the Leaves of Grass. Nature Biotechnol 26:387–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulleit RW (2005) Hunters, Herders and Hamburgers: the past and future of human-animal relationships. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen GA (2011) Rescuing Conservatism. In: Wallace RJ, Kumar R, Freeman S (eds) Reasons and Recognition: essays on the philosophy of T.M. Scanlon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dancy J (1993) Moral Reasons. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Deckers J (2005) Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? reflections on discussions of GM. J Agr Environ Ethic 18:451–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaskell G et al (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? Report to the European Commissions Directorate-General for Research. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2016
  9. Holtug N (2009) Creating and Patenting New Life Forms. In: Kuhse H, Singer P (eds) A companion to bioethics, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, pp. 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horty JF (2007) Reasons as defaults. The Imprint 7:1–28Google Scholar
  11. Horty JF (2012) Reasons as defaults. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea (2013). Editorial, Scientific American, 1 September 2013. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/. Accessed 26 January 2016
  13. Lee K (1999) The Natural and the Artefactual: the implications of deep science and deep technology for environmental ethics. Lexington Books, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S (2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE research project. www.csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.pdf . Accessed 26 January 2016
  15. McKibben B (2003) The End of Nature, revised ed. Random House:LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Mielby H, Sandøe P, Lassen J (2013) Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops? Agric Hum Values 30:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy DJ (2007) People, Plants and Genes: the story of crops and humanity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Preston CJ (2012) Synthetic biology: drawing a line in Darwin’s sand. Environ Value 17:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Preston B (2013) Synthetic biology as red herring. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 44:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pugh J (2015a) The Ethics of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes and Gene-Drive Technology, Ethics in the News, 2 December 2015. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/12/the-ethics-of-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-and-gene-drive-technology/. Accessed 15 June 2016
  22. Pugh J (2015b) Playing God with mosquitoes? We humans have loftier aims. The Conversation, 2 December 2015. https://theconversation.com/playing-god-with-mosquitoes-we-humans-have-loftier-aims-51362. Accessed 15 June 2016
  23. Rozin P (2005) The meaning of “natural”: process more important than content. Psychol Sci 16:652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rozin P et al (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès (2009) Additivity dominance: additives are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than “subtractives”. Judgm Decis Mak 4:475–478Google Scholar
  26. Sandler RL (2007) Character and environment. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson PB (2003) Unnatural farming and the debate over genetic manipulation. In: Gehring VV (ed) Genetic Prospects: essays on biotechnology, ethics and public policy. Rowman and Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson J (2010) The Apology Paradox. Philos Quart 50:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thompson RP (2011) Agro-technology: a philosophical introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whaley BB (1998) Evaluations of rebuttal analogy users: ethical and competence considerations. Argumentation 12:351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of CopenhagenKøbenhavn SDenmark

Personalised recommendations